Skip to main content

View Diary: MAJOR 2nd Amendment victory in the most RKBA-hostile state in America (608 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Except, of course... (16+ / 0-)

    ...that increasingly-liberalized concealed-carry laws have not led to increased deaths.

    In fact, over the same period of time that these laws have become more prevalent, violent crime has decreased.

    Note, I am not saying that these laws have caused the decline in crime, but they certainly haven't caused any increase, either.

    That being the case, there seems to be no link whatsoever to your claims that people value their "rights" more highly than innocent people's lives.

    The two, in this case, are clearly separate.

    Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

    by theatre goon on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 01:15:37 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  crime overall is decreasing - guns? red herrings (0+ / 0-)

      the proportion of the population that is in the prime "Crime years" goes down... as in the baby boomer cohort gets old enough and their kids .... the next mini boom wanes... fewer teens and twenty year olds committing crimes... crime figures go absolutely in lock step with these population trends... and zippo to do with how many guns there are or there are not... and having draconian drug laws and the war on drugs does more to keep crime levels up than having fewer guns around...

      Pogo & Murphy's Law, every time. Also "Trust but verify" - St. Ronnie (hah...)

      by IreGyre on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 03:06:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Maybe you overlooked the part... (11+ / 0-)

        ...where I stated:

        Note, I am not saying that these laws have caused the decline in crime, but they certainly haven't caused any increase, either.
        That being the case, you seem to be responding to something I did not state.

        Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

        by theatre goon on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 03:10:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You did not say that BUT many who want guns (0+ / 0-)

          guns guns as some sort of guaranteed solution will and do argue that it does reduce crime... when it does not.

          Mostly it just gives gun sellers and manufacturers more profits... and gives a lot of people a security blanket that is security neutral. For the relatively few additional actual crimes it stops or criminals shot or killed overall that is easily offset by the deaths and injury from modest increases suicides, accident and heat of the moment wounding... so pretty much crime and death neutral. Not great for the extra people who suffer the downside but very welcome for the similar number who saved a life... their own or a loved one or member of the public... and again, the convenience of a gun for suicides that might not otherwise have happened is another fact that many deny.

          So no overall harm statistically... fine. The constitutionality of ownership is sound. The stonewalling by extreme supporters to block reasonable controls is not. Easy access, no questions asked via Gun shows and easy evasion of poorly enforced existing laws in many jurisdictions continues to allow a flood of guns into the wrong hands. If the NRA got behind more reasonable controls/proper enforcement of existing laws and regulations it would earn more respect and support from those with a more moderate set of positions on Gun laws. Instead they stay true to their fundamental purpose these days: ensuring that nothing slows the manufacturing and sales of guns and the profits from it in the slightest...

          The bulk of rest of the fervent NRA supporters are more like the Tea party is to the Republican party - Dupes who can be relied on to swallow scare stories and howl down any reasonable deviation from their paranoid views.

          The sane, responsible gun owners, sportsmen etc. who believe in sound training and prudent laws to slow access to guns by criminals and the mentally ill etc. are not outnumbered by the excited fringe who are totally convinced that Obama, Commies etc. are "comin' to take our guns", but they are definitely outshouted and outvoted in the NRA and overall in the national debate.

          At some point the debate must spread into the NRA and industry shills should not be running the place. The change in thinking and approach has to come from within. Maybe if there is nothing left to lobby for... concealed carry is legal everywhere... etc. and they run out of more constitutionally plausible goals, maybe that will allow them to clear their heads and think things through a bit. At some point all the people who just have to have that extra rifle or handgun, that extra stock of ammo will run out of reasons to buy at the rate they have been over the past few years.

          The scare stories that have inflated sales figures over the past 4 years may just wear out their power to panic. Sales like Fox viewing figures and talk radio audience numbers will plateau and being declining... a mature market. When every home has a flat TV in every room... sales taper off... when everyone has a cell phone or two or three the market switches to replacement and aspirational upgrade sales mode. So too gun sales will settle back to more of replacement or upgrade type market again... so unless sexy new features and technology come along with new "Must Have" elements... or the Gun lobby is successful in igniting a new Civil war... they may have to accept a decline in profits... but they will resist that and only after their lucrative "Export" market to Mexican gangs wanes (if the calamitous War on drugs is dumped finally)... and maybe gun fair loopholes are plugged but they will fight that by any means necessary even doing their part in setting half the nation against the other half... stalemate in gun debate risking civil violence is fine as long as it keeps sales healthy.

          I support the right of 2nd amendment supporters to keep their right to bear arms up to a point... but when they make common cause either directly or help indirectly with the more dangerous aims and goals of the NRA and their allies they are pretty much just being enablers of certain corporate bottom lines at the expense of democracy and not making the nation safer or more democratic... what should be one of the pillars of freedom can become one of the things that threatens it when extremists control the debate and pour gasoline on political fires. Not progressive gun rights people... but those others are out there and they outnumber supporters on the left...

          Pogo & Murphy's Law, every time. Also "Trust but verify" - St. Ronnie (hah...)

          by IreGyre on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 05:28:15 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  So, if I'm reading you correctly... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Wordsinthewind, rockhound

            Since someone, somewhere, said something somewhat, but not particularly, similar to what I said, then what they said is somehow relevant to a conversation in which no one has stated that opinion.

            And because my political stance somewhat, but not particularly, resembles a stance taken by someone else, then I have to respond to that other stance, which is not one that I actually take.

            That's a pretty convoluted way of asking me to respond to something I never said.

            Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

            by theatre goon on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 07:39:35 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  nah... I was going general... not you specifically (0+ / 0-)

              and of course anything I said can be just brushed over and ignored by a lot of strong 2nd amend people because... I am assuming because they might distrust anyone who might be not totally in sync with certain fundamental scriptural interpretations of the founding document...

              and would not ever, ever entertain some fine tuning on gun laws or regulations etc. or am I wrong?

              I just can't get my head around the fundamentalist gun rights thinking that goes beyond reasonable measures just in case something somewhere might suddenly erode all our freedoms if there is not total gun ownership by all citizens over 18... or younger even... lock and load.

              There seems to be an unyielding self-policing doctrinaire group on both extremes totally pro and totally anti... and poor hapless people in the middle are decried by both as appeasing or enabling the other extreme.... the "all gun all the time no restriction" people on one hand and the "no guns, nohow, nowhere, not ever" people on the other... and who both sound like they pretty much think those who are not with them completely are against them and quite often in these comment threads I never know which or neither of the extremes might describe the commenter.

              Pogo & Murphy's Law, every time. Also "Trust but verify" - St. Ronnie (hah...)

              by IreGyre on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 08:27:01 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yep, you're wrong. (0+ / 0-)
                and would not ever, ever entertain some fine tuning on gun laws or regulations etc. or am I wrong?
                This is simply untrue.

                So, get back to me when you want to discuss the matter as it actually is, rather than trying to couch it in some attitude that people don't actually take.

                Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                by theatre goon on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 03:19:58 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  so what do 2nd amend protectors want?? (0+ / 0-)

                  I never see any leeway, any acceptance... that anything less than an NRA friendly solution is off the table.

                  I just never see or hear or read anything other than scathing rejection of anything and everything.... not a whisp of the slightest acceptance that those not totally sold on gunning up might have a few points now and then.

                  Pogo & Murphy's Law, every time. Also "Trust but verify" - St. Ronnie (hah...)

                  by IreGyre on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 03:26:55 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  just nit picking and ignoring of many points. nt (0+ / 0-)

                    Pogo & Murphy's Law, every time. Also "Trust but verify" - St. Ronnie (hah...)

                    by IreGyre on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 03:27:15 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Then you should actually read... (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Wordsinthewind, rockhound

                    ...a few of our diaries.

                    I mean, that way you could respond to what we actually state, instead of creating stances to respond to that no one actually takes.

                    If you want to engage in honest discussion, at least.

                    Your decision.

                    Hell, the diary you are commenting is is talking about how it's a good thing that another state may now soon have a concealed-carry law.

                    A law, which involves regulation of firearms ownership -- not a complete rejection of all regulation, as you are falsely alleging.

                    Seriously, if you can't even get this diary right, why would you bother responding to what we actually say...?

                    Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                    by theatre goon on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 03:40:57 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  the current regulations - gun owners like them? (0+ / 0-)

                      they seem to grumble about them quite a bit or suspect them all of being stepping stones to banning if not radically curtailing gun ownership someday... and effectively the message seems to be that any additional changes to tighten laws and regulations should be rejected out of hand as being part of that suspected agenda.

                      Would be interesting to hear how "gun regulators" come across or appear to reasonable gun owners... do they all seem like closet disarmers? 2nd amendment choppers? Gun rights suppressors? or just sadly misinformed dupes of whatever...? I think it is clear what the extreme gun fetishists think about this but they are a small percentage that gets all the coverage while there is a lot of variation in views among the more numerous moderates who no longer have much of a voice in the NRA or elsewhere since any deviation from extreme policies is suspect and only those with uniform thinking who band together can be a unified force to dominate debate.

                      The NRA and the arms industry relationship is like how ALEC, Chambers of Commerce, Heritage foundation is to the Oil industry and the Koch brothers etc. They artificially shape and focus a particular set of people both citizens and politicians to achieve a self serving agenda... any fervent and roused group can be manipulated and used by someone with convergent aims who has power and stands to gain substantially from fulfilling those aims. And reasonable gun owners end up being inadvertent allies and even tools of those who ostensibly have the same views but somewhat different goals... profits and power while being indifferent to the effects of their policies on ordinary people.

                      So what are the ultimate goals of most gun rights defenders? 100% gun ownership?... what wish list that would take care of all the problems of alleged restrictions on the 2nd amendment? open and concealed carry anywhere any time by anyone over what? 16?... no waiting periods or registration? No restrictions on types of firearms or ammunition? and/or what else? Would they settle for anything less? There does not seem to be much acceptance of any compromise with those who disagree with the most wide interpretation of the 2nd amendment and instead vigorously fight any curtailing of their broad definition of gun rights actual or perceived. What would the minimum status quo be before they felt able to relax and not feel like they were under siege by disarmers who scorn their views on guns?

                      And I hardly ever see any points by those who would like to see regulation tightened up accepted as having any the slightest validity at all by gun owners. The attitude and response by gun rights defenders generally amounts to one of scathing rejection... with overtones that those who would like improved regulation and enforcement are totally misinformed and maybe a bit stupid while gun rights people are the the opposite - and defend their rock solid positions with chip on shoulders and scornful of anything someone who disagrees with them... there can be no debate or discussion with anyone who is 100% convinced that they are right. Not saying all gun rights people are like that but that appears to be the prevailing attitude. For far too many discussion is only good if it is pretty much agreement that whatever gun owners want is right and the 2nd amendment weakeners should shut up and go away or better yet that the pantywaist pinko disarmers should suddenly begin admiring guns and emulating their owners and become an enthusiastic gun owner as well.

                      I have always been ambivalent to some degree about where to draw the line on regulation but also believe that existing laws and regulations should be uniformly and effectively enforced at least plus that removing a few loopholes that make a lot of them toothless is vital to make them function properly. But those who say the existing laws are all we need or even more that some should be rolled back or loosened do not seem to have much good to say about regulations or work for better, uniform enforcement of them... and tacitly go along with the current reality that these can be evaded by anyone, anytime with not too much effort and that the current NRA and supporter positions make the work of police harder and do not make the country safer.

                      The most amazing thing is comparing the annual death from from guns in the USA with other countries that do not have the same staggeringly large arsenal with the US and how that is explained away with things like... well they have knife murders over there... or criminals still have guns there or whatever. The basic truth remains that there are fewer murders in those countries and far far fewer using guns and the US stands out compared to all developed countries as being awash with guns and having a far larger number of gun deaths... denial of the relationship between the two by far too many is astonishing... as are the contortions used to explain this obvious truth away and instead explain why it is great for the USA to have so many firearms while being indifferent to the ease of getting them in the face of the supposedly onerous gun laws... and deny there is a problem of any kind at all... and the only real issue is the threat of curtailing the rights of gun owners.

                      There are plenty of reasonable people who are gun owners who take the responsibilities of ownership seriously (the majority since there are actually more reasonable people overall in any large group or population)... and they get unfairly tarred with the same brush that out and out gun nuts deserve. But then from a non gun owner's perspective they often come across as "gun nut lite" in discussions... so it is hard for those who would prefer better controls to tell the difference between the more vocal moderate gun owner and the extreme members of the Ted Nugent party...

                      Sure there is a huge difference between the nutters out on the internet (not here) and moderate gun owners. The extreme views are well represented all over the net - those who seem to see plots against their guns everywhere, making direct threats involving use of guns... or wishing dire and nasty things to happen to those they automatically see as closet gun banners with an agenda to disarm the nation. The non-nuts are nothing like that but are still often defensive or scornful and discussion with them tends to not get much further than with someone more of the Nuge variety.... maybe because they are tired of saying the same stuff over and over to those who disagree with them... and are not listening either themselves.

                      And it would appear that non-nut owners as a group do not seem to have much to say about the embarrassing fringe wackos with extreme gun views who are a problem who tend to paranoid fantasies with lots of posturing and fetish behavior, rabidly defensive and very right wing. I know those on that extreme are a small minority of gun owners but the heat and noise they make does magnify and distort public perceptions about gun owners in general... And they almost serve as a loony defense cordon around gun rights that distracts from actual discussion... and those wackos don't want any discussion while their more moderate brothers who do partially welcome some debate seem to want to do it on their terms... narrow and define what can or cannot be discussed while wholesale rejecting any fact or figures or concepts that might widen the discussion and complicate the justifications for their views.

                      Pogo & Murphy's Law, every time. Also "Trust but verify" - St. Ronnie (hah...)

                      by IreGyre on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 04:26:11 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  It would have been much quicker... (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

               just state that you have no intention to read what we actually say and respond to that, instead of creating this new battalion of strawmen to attack.

                        Really, it would have saved us both a lot of time, and been much more direct and honest.

                        Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                        by theatre goon on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 04:41:46 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  well I can go digging for diaries (0+ / 0-)

                          or maybe you could give a link to some?

                          So everything I have to say is just strawmen? nice. Some discussion starts with staking out what the extreme  positions are... ones held by few on either side and by a process of elimination working towards the middle until there is more and more agreement and the actual real sticking points are identified... and that is not to accuse the majority of the other side of being extreme but instead assume that they are not and by working towards the rational center find where thinking overlaps where the same goals lie.. that sort of thing... And finding common ground is vital since the social agreement lines drawn in the middle need to change from time to time in both directions to adapt to changes and not get stuck in one direction only ... rigidity on either side makes important social adjustments that much harder.

                          sometimes saying everything is just "strawmen" is just an excuse to not actually think about what others are saying...

                          do you put up any strawmen? I would have to actually locate some diaries to read in order to find out.

                          I get the feeling that the chapter and verse doctrines are somewhere and that they cannot be questioned or debated... I would like to be wrong on that.

                          What I really want to find is what if any middle ground there is. What people can agree on...  I think the firearms rights people on Dkos are not that far apart from most of the rest compared to say a militia member with a personal armory...

                          There are too much slippery slope arguments on both sides and the more reasonable would agree that there is a balance, a set of agreed compromises that do not diminish basic rights unduly but that make sense. And there has to be a middle ground acceptable to most because guns are a special case... personal weapons and defense that also great scope for abuse and harm...

                          but with the more alarmist on one side scoffing at the self protection and defense arguments and counter claiming that more guns and less regulation will lead to more death and some sort of Somalia nation... and the other opposite alarmists convinced that any compromise will lead to disarming and loss of freedoms and democracy and lead to Soviet-Nazi regimes... yes those are among the literal predictions and worries of the more excitable at both ends... but these nightmare scenarios are the logical extensions of nuggets of truth and more rational concerns nearer the middle on both sides and the more dialed down the related or basic concepts are the more plausible and rational they are. But most do not crank reasonable reality based concerns up to the loony level but they are routinely suspected of being on the road to that.

                          Compromise is a dirty word to many these days and especially if one side distrusts the true intentions of the other.... but in my experience most people are not that far apart on gun laws at all... but they usually cannot get past the minority on both sides who have strong feelings and positions.

                          Pogo & Murphy's Law, every time. Also "Trust but verify" - St. Ronnie (hah...)

                          by IreGyre on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 07:54:50 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes, you are engaging in strawman arguments. (0+ / 0-)
                            Some discussion starts with staking out what the extreme  positions are...
                            Some do, but those positions are not advocated here.

                            That being the case, unless and until you want to discuss stances we actually take, I will let you continue your discussion on your own.

                            As it is, you are simply crafting stances that you can attack.  Why would I waste time defending stances that I don't actually take?

                            Rhetorical, of course -- I do not think you have any interest in discussing the stances we actually take.  If you did, you would.


                            Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                            by theatre goon on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 08:56:26 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

      •  Reading comprehension problem? n/t (5+ / 0-)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site